Poll – Campaign contributions should be limited – Not!

Media continues to try to form public opinion on Freedom of Speech as defined by the Supreme Court in its 5-4 decision in Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission, which excluded independent spending limits on corporations and unions for political elections up to election day, calling it a constitutionally protected form of political speech.

Excerpts from Rockford RegisterStar:

More than 8 in 10 Americans in a poll by The Associated Press and the National Constitution Center support limits on the amount of money given to groups that are trying to influence U.S. elections.

“Corporate donations, I think that is one of the biggest problems today,” said Walter L. Cox Sr., 86, of Cleveland. “They are buying the White House. They are buying public office.”

Cox, a Democrat, was one of many people in the poll who do not, in spite of the high court ruling, think corporate and union campaign spending should be unlimited.

Think Mr. Cox feels the same about union contributions? Are unions buying public office Mr. Cox, despite 40% of their membership not agreeing with the union leader’s choice? We will never know because he wasn’t asked that question by the pollsters.

Many pollsters, try to influence the results of their poll by asking the question in a way guaranteed to give the desired opinion. Do you think the form of this poll question asked by AP and NCC influenced the outcome?

Do you think there should or should not be limits on the amount of money corporations, unions and other organizations can contribute to outside organizations trying to influence campaigns for President, Senate and U.S. House?

Emphasis added to show suspected phrase in poll question. This is why polls are becoming suspect.

National Public Radio, another liberal leaning organization thinks that the ruling has helped Republicans more because of corporation donations. No mention again of unions, which enjoy the same limits. What happened to the Obama express of a $1Billion dollar presidential campaign?

Liberals want restrictions on the first amendment, as long as it doesn’t affect their beliefs or organizations. Can’t let the American people have the choice to contribute to whom they wish – unions don’t want to give their members that choice either!

What about the thousands of jobs created by election campaigns all over the country – advertising, printers, graphic designers, market and political strategists – just to name of few?

Mr. President, just think of the campaign worker’s jobs that you could take credit for in your “saved jobs” total, due to your $800B stimulus program – many union jobs too!

If public corporations are going to support political issues, and candidates, then I, as a consumer or customer, should be able do make informed decisions on who I want to do business with. I can’t do that under the current law. Corporations are not people, they are boards of directors making decisions on behalf of their share holders without their shareholder’s knowledge.

Steve Noll – Corporations are just as much people as unions are. People run the corporation, people, many retirees, buy the stock. We are free to sell the stock, if we don’t like the political position, the way the corporation is run, or if dividends are reduced. With a corporation, you are free to chose whether to be an investor, buy their products, work for the company. Where’s the choice with any union?

Corporations give as much money to Obama and the Democrats as they do Republicans. You simply don’t want any money going to Republicans – no freedom of speech needed in our country – to get business’s point of view out there for the voters – Democrats like campaign financing as long as it goes to liberal candidates, who take other people’s money to reward the voters, who vote to take other people’s money!

I guess you don’t get it. Corporations and unions alike contribute to PAC’s instead of making direct contributions. I can’t make any decisions based on those contibutions because donors are setting up non-pr0fits to make donations indirectly so that it is never clear who donated to what. That’s a result of Super Pacs which exist because of Citizens United. I’m all for corporations donating. and I think they should do more of it, but only if we citizens also know who they are so we can put the message in context and make informed decisions.

So Steve, you see the egg before the chicken. I see the chicken before the egg. I see that people are elected, make their votes and people give them contributions to get them reelected because they agree with their positions.

You see contributions influencing the elected person and then they vote the way they are told by the contributors. That does happen, but not everyone can be bought! Some people get elected because they want to turn things around, solve problems and don’t care if they get reelected.

They think that if I vote like that guy or organization wants me to, then they might as well sit in the seat and I’ll do something else. But while they are in the elected seat, they can affect enormous good and save millions of dollars, if they ignore the money – don’t you think?

Consequently, an informed electorate will put the person back in the job. If they are not informed, they get the government they deserve, along with the rest of us!

A top official at a liberal super PAC with the goal of eradicating tea partiers from Congress is telling activists that it’s more effective to label Republicans as racists than criticize their policies.

According to an audio recording obtained by The Daily Caller, Matthew “Mudcat” Arnold, the national campaign manager of the liberal CREDO super PAC, told a gathering of supporters in Aurora, Colo., on Sept. 8 that they’ve realized “policy did not move voters.”

He used Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King as an example.

“When we said that Steve King … is pro-life and believes in cutting Social Security and voted for the Ryan budget, no one cared,” Arnold said. “When we said Steve King’s a racist, Steve King believes that immigrants ought to be put in electric fences, people moved.”

“When you talk about the substance of a man’s character, people respond,” Arnold continued. “Believe it or not, that is not something politicians knew.”

SNuss, that would be the same thing that people calling the president a terrorist, a communist, an anti-Christian and other maniacal terms are doing. People are not used to the Democrats actually standing up for themselves. As a result, you’ll probably see a lot of unfair attack ads since the perception is that’s how the tea party faired well in the 2010 elections. A successful idea will be co-opted.

Actually, calling Obama a Socialist, Marxist, incompetent, and arrogant can be quantified by his own words, associates, and actions, so it is far from unsubstantiated.

On the other hand, Romney DOES understand how to make businesses prosper, as about 80% of the troubled businesses that Bain Capital controlled, survived and prospered. That is a pretty good average of success. That is what we need now, someone who understands TRUE capitalism, and can get people off of food stamps, and back to earning a living.